Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 02:17:50 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Inception

Started by CaledonianGonzo, July 08, 2010, 08:36:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

thugler

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on August 28, 2010, 09:00:37 AM
Re: the Modern Warfare criticisms, I loved the fact that the film had dramatically satisfying action scenes to go with the cerebral nature of the rest of it. I think that completely worked in its favour - the chase scene through Mombasa, the assault on the snow fortress, the car chase...and the way the final series of dreams affected each other was just brilliant.


They weren't dramatically satisfying to me, and I'll explain why. The only reason they were there was to have something with lots of bangs to entertain the audience. They were faceless meaningless unlimited baddies with guns IN EVERY DREAM. Surely the good thing about having a film set inside dreamscapes is that unusual things can happen, not just endless gun battles with endless henchmen with no relevance to the plot.

Famous Mortimer

I'm not going to defend it much more as it's not like I can say anything that will suddenly make you go "hey, you're right! It was a great film!" (or vice versa, probably), but the baddies being faceless minions was explained fairly well, I thought. Obviously, you didn't, and so be it. I think their relevance to the plot was also laid out very clearly, in that the projections of a person's subconscious will try and fight off the "infection" of an alien mindset in their dream. Going a stage further, the reason they take the form of people fighting the main cast with guns and car chases and that could be seen to be a result of indoctrination from decades of Hollywood films.

QuoteIN EVERY DREAM
It was more like a wire-fu martial arts battle in the Joseph-Gordon Levitt dream, but I get your point.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

It made sense in the context that they were fighting someone elses artificial defense mechanism, which was programmed to be a mechanical/computerised-a-like conveyor belt of enemies- actually the more appropriate analogy would be white blood cells trying to fight an infection.

But yes, it was somewhat of a shame that the dreams were all Here Is Another Clean Christopher Nolan Room, rather than anything more psychedelic or disconcerting. The trial dream in Paris was terrific, though. Really reminded me of Neo's first experience of The Matrix, but those are the sort of rug-pulling worlds I want cinema to introduce to me.

Before I went to the cinema I was annoyed how most of it looked distinctly undreamy, but when I went to see it, that concern was quickly supplanted by the strength of the story.

Famous Mortimer

But the lack of psychedelic / disconcerting rooms was explained as having to stick as close to normality as possible, wasn't it? Or am I misunderstanding a wider point you're making?

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on August 28, 2010, 04:49:49 PM
But the lack of psychedelic / disconcerting rooms was explained as having to stick as close to normality as possible, wasn't it? Or am I misunderstanding a wider point you're making?

Yes, the dreams were synthetic, designed levels, if you like. I have no problem with that, and the plot justifies why it was like it was. It doesn't mean I'd rather not have had more interesting dreamscapes. There were moments of beauty/surrealism where the scenes became dreamlike, but fewer than I'd have preferred, even in their conceit.

thugler

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on August 28, 2010, 04:12:36 PM
It made sense in the context that they were fighting someone elses artificial defense mechanism, which was programmed to be a mechanical/computerised-a-like conveyor belt of enemies- actually the more appropriate analogy would be white blood cells trying to fight an infection.


But why does it always have to be expressed by hordes of faceless shooty goons.

All the explanation in the world wouldn't make an endless wave of baddies with guns interesting since there is nothing to them.

Famous Mortimer

If the film was about the people attacking the main characters, rather than the main characters, then you'd be right in that a lack of characterisation of the goons was a hindrance to enjoyment of the film. What characterisation do white blood cells have?

Catalogue Trousers

Saw it this evening. Badly want to see it again. Loved it.

Something that's hardly been touched on in this thread: astonishingly good sound design, probably the best that I've heard in a film since Suspiria. The unpleasant meaty crunch of car door in face! The harsh splintering of wine glass! The way that Hans Zimmer's score, channelling John Barry at his best (David Arnold? Who he?) crashes and thunders in during the assault on the snowy army base! Just lovely.

Custard

Harry Knowles pretty much shat all over it in his (very late in the day) review, and the talkback underneath was pretty furious. Mainly cos Knowles fell asleep during it, and kept harping on about how Cobb etc should've dreamt bigger and created nuttier worlds and weapons etc. When it's clearly explained towards the start of the film (and throughout) that they have to make the dream-worlds feel as realistic as possible, so the victim doesn't twig he's dreaming.

So many negative reviews i've read from people have used that to knock the film with, and it's bizarre.

thugler

Quote from: Shameless on August 28, 2010, 11:05:19 PM
Harry Knowles pretty much shat all over it in his (very late in the day) review, and the talkback underneath was pretty furious. Mainly cos Knowles fell asleep during it, and kept harping on about how Cobb etc should've dreamt bigger and created nuttier worlds and weapons etc. When it's clearly explained towards the start of the film (and throughout) that they have to make the dream-worlds feel as realistic as possible, so the victim doesn't twig he's dreaming.

So many negative reviews i've read from people have used that to knock the film with, and it's bizarre.

But that's a shitty excuse to not bother to be creative and to fill it with identikit crowd pleasing action bollocks.

When your dreaming you don't realise it's a dream because YOU ARE DREAMING. I've had numerous bizarre dreams and at no point in them do I think, 'sod this, I'm dreaming'.

Even if you have to make it 'realistic' as realistic as endless shooting might be...

There are a million ways of expressing the idea of a person fighting off the invasion of their dream than the endless waves of goons method.

Custard

#190
Quote from: thugler on August 29, 2010, 01:47:43 AM
But that's a shitty excuse to not bother to be creative and to fill it with identikit crowd pleasing action bollocks.

When your dreaming you don't realise it's a dream because YOU ARE DREAMING. I've had numerous bizarre dreams and at no point in them do I think, 'sod this, I'm dreaming'.

Really? As I've had that many a time. To the point of actually trying my hardest to wake myself up.

It makes absolute sense for them to try to make the dreams as realistic as possible. Why would they even consider wrecking a job by going all silly with it? They wouldn't would they! It'd arguably be more entertaining for the viewer, yes, but wouldn't really make any sense in the context of the story, and what they're trying to do.

Vitalstatistix

I don't think making the dreams like James Bond films made them more realistic, just more boring.

Custard

Well, it made them more realistic than say, falling into a mahoosive trifle with Dame Edna on yer back.

Nik Drou

Dwarfs In Dreams

Seriously, though; I think having dragons and Roger Dean landscapes and a bunch of other crazy stuff that no-one really dreams of anyway, would have been more 'crowd-pleasing' to a cinemagoing audience.  Check out the trailer for Sucker Punch, which seems to be nothing but that sort of thing.

For me, it was refreshing to have the 'dreams' very grounded and functional, with no hokeyness or CG malarky.  They would need to be that way for the characters, and the movie, to successfully work around them.  Whether or not it's in keeping with how the subconscious really works is irrelevant. 

Plus It helped lay down an interesting subtext, where men in suits use fantasy realms for amoral and mercenary purposes.  I think the film is partly about that economising of imagination, which in turn makes it more imaginative and satisfying than some Gilliamesque wander through whimsy.

Vitalstatistix

Quote from: Shameless on August 29, 2010, 01:13:28 PM
Well, it made them more realistic than say, falling into a mahoosive trifle with Dame Edna on yer back.

Now that I could get behind!

Custard

That's the thing, personally my dreams are hardly ever OTT or wacky these days. They're usually quite realistic dreams about the things i've been doing that day, and/or the people i've seen.

When i was a kid i'd have have regular dreams about being a superhero (Super Dan. Sigh), fighting various enemies (E honda from Streetfighter II being a highlight), but these days it's all boring realistic shite.

So these days i'm more likely to believe what i'm dreaming is real, as nothing too nutty ever really seems to happen. Sadly. 

But in the context of the story, it made absolute sense not to go overboard.

mobias

#196
Quote from: Nik Drou on August 29, 2010, 01:30:47 PM
Dwarfs In Dreams

I think the film is partly about that economising of imagination, which in turn makes it more imaginative and satisfying than some Gilliamesque wander through whimsy.

I think that's total bollocks. How can the film be partly about the economising of the imagination? If it is then the film is party about Christopher Nolan's utter lack of cinematic vision. I'm not saying the film HAS to be in the realms of Terry Gilliam (though given the budget and the basic premise of the story to play with I'm sure Gilliam would have done something a million times better) but for starters the film could have had an emotional backbone, something it badly needs, and it could have been so much more clever in how it dealt with the subconscious than just having a bunch of people shooting at each other and blowing stuff up. I don't see how in any way shape or form that could be seen as imaginative. Its a cold and vacuous movie.

Nik Drou

I think Gilliam is just as guilty of lacking an emotional backbone in his movies, with noteable exceptions, and is generally a director concerned with ideas and imagery above coherent storytelling.  Dr Parnassus, with the best will in the world, was pretty much a mess and no amount of budget would have fixed it.  I don't see him making a film 'a million times better' than Inception with the same premise and cash at his fingertips.

Having said that, I think the lack of a solid emotional core is a more valid criticism of the movie, and vicariously Nolan's other work.  It's the same criticism you can level at any number of heist movies (which is essentially what Inception is) or films with amoral protagonists.  However, the character of Moll, while only ever seen as a flashback or a manifestation, kind of represents everyone else's lost humanity.  She is manipulated by Cobb and is the only one that allows her fantastic experiences to profoundly affect her to the point of self-destruction, whilst they all stoically carry on manipulating people's subconscious in a pleasingly unscrupulous fashion.  Therefore, her appearances and general antagonism in the movie are their punishment for not being more sympathetic.

ThickAndCreamy

I've just watched this and like many clearly see the ending as ambiguous, and I was very happy to not see
Spoiler alert
the spinning top collapse at the end
[close]
simply because it would have seen as the easy way out. It makes it more exciting and thought provoking just leaving it open to interpretation.

As for the film itself I was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed it, but not in the way I expected I would. To me first and foremost it's an action film, just with a subtext of psychology, morality and philosophy, all done in a pretty simplistic[nb]This isn't a condemnation, the simplification is needed for the action to be comprehend-able as it has too much of it to fit in deeper context.[/nb] way. I agree a lot with Johnny Townmouse's review on here and in fact it's his comparison to Solaris that made me want to see it. The major difference between the two (there are many) is that Solaris seems to be more focused on narrative, this is focused on action. I was expecting a huge complicated narrative of delusional psychology, but it was really quite simple to comprehend albeit with many clear scenes of dialogue essentially telling the viewer exactly what's happening and why it's happening.

Overall, it's a good, reasonably thought provoking Hollywood blockbuster, but certainly not the second coming. It's Nolan's best film, and it's clear he really has improved as a director, from the simplicity of Memento (the chronological changes do ultimately hide a very dull and simplistic plot), and Batman Begins, to make slightly more intelligent and interesting movies. Not to say he's an amazing director, just that he's the rich man's Michael Bay.